1 / 8

U.S. vs. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company, et al

U.S. vs. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company, et al. Price fixing and Market Allocation 1896-98. The Addyston Group: Cast Iron Pipe. Industry Characteristics and Background. High fixed costs, fluctuating demand, high transportation costs, product homogeneity

phuoc
Download Presentation

U.S. vs. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company, et al

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. vs. Addyston Pipe and Steel Company, et al Price fixing and Market Allocation 1896-98

  2. The Addyston Group: Cast Iron Pipe

  3. Industry Characteristics and Background • High fixed costs, fluctuating demand, high transportation costs, product homogeneity • Customers are municipalities and utilities for distribution of water and natural gas. Jobs are bid. • Geographical location of Addyston group gave it transportation cost advantages over manufacturers in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York. • Recession severely reduced demand for pipe in early 1890s • Firms sought ways to restrict “ruinous” competition • Addyston group operated at only 45% capacity in 1896 after recovery had begun

  4. First Agreement 1894 • Reserve territory: cities reserved to certain firms • Firms chose cities closer to them than to other firms • Firms paid a “bonus” of $2/ton to cartel for sales to reserve cities • Pay territory: all other cities west of NewYork and Pennsylvania and south of Virginia • All member firms bid for business in these cities • Pay “bonus” of $1 to $4 per ton to cartel • Bonus determined by cartel’s transportation cost advantage over outsiders • Bonuses paid out to members based on their production capacities

  5. Second Agreement 1895 • First agreement failed to “advance the price” in pay area • All requests for bids sent to cartel Board. • Cartel Board determines price to be bid for the job, reflecting transportation cost advantages. • Each cartel member “bids” a bonus amount to be paid to the cartel for winning the job (say, $8/ton) • Cartel Board announces winning member on each job, who bids cartel price to end customer. • Other members also bid on each job to suggest competition, but bid higher than the cartel price. • Bonuses were shared among the cartel members according to their production capacities. • See transportation cost graph.

  6. Court Proceedings • Philadelphia pipe company underbids cartel for Atlanta job; Atlanta rejects all bids as too high. • Secretary of cartel offers to make cartel operations public in return for share of damages. • Government sues cartel (1896); loses in district court. • On appeal, 6th Circuit finds for the government (1898). • Judge William Howard Taft writes opinion • “naked” restraints eliminate competition: per se illegal • “ancillary” restraints may be socially beneficial: rule of reason • Perpetually enjoined defendants from maintaining the combination in cast iron pipe. • Established per se illegality of price fixing restrictions later confirmed in Trenton Potteries (Supreme Court, 1927).

  7. Aftermath • In May 1898, after Taft’s decision in February, four cartel members merge to form the American Pipe and Foundry Company. • In 1899, American Pipe combines with the other two cartel members and other firms to become United States Cast Iron Pipe and Foundry Company. • U.S. Pipe has 450,000 tons annual capacity representing 75% of the national market. • This “merger to monopoly” would be illegal today, but was not at the time.

  8. Sources • Viscusi, W. Kip, John M. Vernon and Joseph E. Harrington, Jr. (1998) Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, 2nd ed., Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 139-44. • Breit, William E. and Kenneth G. Elzinga. (1989) The Antitrust Casebook, 2nd ed., New York: Dryden Press, pp. 17-23. • Neale, A. D. (1970) The Antitrust Laws of the U. S. A. 2nd ed., London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 33-34.

More Related